Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – satirical item reported on marketing strategy to enhance Palmerston North’s image as a visitor destination – included file footage of clock tower and other buildings – footage taken prior to $24 million redevelopment – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – file footage was extremely brief – not a material point of fact – would not have misled viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A satirical item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Friday 1 October 2010, entitled “Worst Town”, reported on an initiative by Palmerston North City Council to improve the city’s image by marketing its top seven destinations. The presenter introduced the item as follows: You remember comedian [name] branded it ‘suicide capital of New Zealand’....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coastwatch – repeat screening of an episode showing a family who had been apprehended by Fisheries Officers for infringing the fishing regulations – allegedly breached the privacy of the familyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A repeat broadcast of an episode of Coastwatch screened on TV One at 1pm on 3 October 2004. Coastwatch is a reality series which follows the activities of various law enforcement officers who patrol the coastline. The original episode had screened at 8pm on 15 March 2004. [2] The broadcast showed a family who had been apprehended by Fisheries Officers for taking more cockles from the beach than permitted by law....

ComplaintFamily Health Diary – item broadcast during One News – included comment that high blood cholesterol was a risk factor in heart disease – followed by claim that a product called "Logicol" could reduce cholesterol absorption – medical information – unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsFamily Health Diary is advertising programme – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promotion for the product "Logicol" was included in the "Family Health Diary" broadcast on TV One during One News between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 27 September 2001. [2] Mr James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item included medical information which was unbalanced and inaccurate. [3] As TVNZ said that the "Family Health Diary" was an advertising programme put together by Brand World, it referred the complaint to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board for determination....

ComplaintsPromos – Mercy Peak x 3 – The Swap x 1 – Bad Girls x 1 – offensive language – classification – violence – two aspects of one complaint upheld by TVNZ – excessive violence and wrongly classified – reasons for promos advanced by TVNZ as informing and attracting viewers by using interesting and intriguing sequences FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a, Standard 7 and Guideline 7b, Standard 10 and Guideline 10c – five promos did not contain offensive language or offensive behaviour – no uphold; the four promos contained minimal violence and were not inappropriately classified – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Promos for Mercy Peak, The Swap and Bad Girls were broadcast by TVNZ at various times and on different days in April 2002....

ComplaintHolmes – young people mimicking professional wrestling – impressionable people might copy – irresponsible itemFindingsStandard G12 – extensive warnings – no uphold Standard V6 – cautionary tale – appropriate warnings – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item discussing a social problem in the United States involving young people mimicking professional wrestling stunts they saw on television was broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 19 April 2001. John and Barbara Maltby complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that impressionable young people in New Zealand might copy the graphic detail shown in the item. They considered that TVNZ had been irresponsible in screening the item. In response, TVNZ noted that the item had been preceded by a lengthy warning and followed by a statement from the presenter urging young people not to follow the example set by some American youth....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item interviewed aid worker Nicola Enchmarch about being caught up in an Israeli commando raid on a flotilla off Gaza in which nine activists died – footage of a man throwing a rock and of another man bleeding shown during discussion of Ms Enchmarch’s previous attempt to get aid to Gaza by land – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – footage subject to complaint did not constitute a material point of fact to which the standard applied and was not misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about rescue helicopter trip to Raoul Island following volcanic eruption – one DOC worker missing – member of rescue team commented that supplies included a body bag – complaint that reference to body bag was hurtful to missing worker’s family and item allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – news item dealt with reality of situation – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The organisation of a rescue team to fly to Raoul Island to search for a missing Department of Conservation staff member, following a volcanic eruption, was dealt with in an item on One News broadcast on 17 March 2006 beginning at 6. 00pm. The logistics of the helicopter flight were covered as was previous volcanic activity on the island....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spongebob Squarepants – cartoon programme – characters went on a “panty raid” to steal women’s underwear – allegedly in breach of children’s interests FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – contextual factors – content not unsuitable for children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The cartoon Spongebob Squarepants, which follows the activities of characters in an underwater community, was broadcast on weekdays at 4pm on TV2. The episode screened on 31 August 2006 was about an ageing crab who was attempting to recapture his youth with a night on the town. The characters suggested that they go on a “panty raid” to steal women’s underwear. To the crab’s horror, he discovered that the raid was on his mother’s house and the underwear belonged to her....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Step Dave, broadcast during The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, showed two female characters kissing and brief sexual innuendo. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that it was inappropriate to screen such an ‘overtly sexual’ promo during a children’s movie. The promo included low-level sexual innuendo which was unlikely to be understood by younger viewers, and unlikely to disturb or offend most viewers in the context of the PGR host programme. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] A promo for Step Dave, broadcast during The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, showed two female characters kissing. One of the women said, referring to the two of them and the other woman’s boyfriend, ‘I think the three of us could have fun’....

The Authority upheld a privacy complaint about an item on 1 News reporting on residents’ concerns about ‘boy racers’ in a particular Christchurch suburb. It featured an interview with a resident reported as being ‘too scared to be identified’. Close-up footage, including a side-on view of part of her face (unblurred), revealed her demographic, gender, the length and colour of her hair, voice, profile of her nose, clothes, watch, a distinctive ring and the side of her glasses. The Authority found these features enabled identification of the interviewee beyond family and close friends. Their disclosure would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in her position, given she participated on the understanding she would not be identified. The Authority was not persuaded the defence of informed consent applied to the breach of the woman’s privacy....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that use of the phrase ‘how the hell’ in an item on Breakfast breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found the use of the word would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress or undermined widely shared community values. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News reporting on the separation of migrant families in the United States. The complaint was that references to President Donald Trump’s ‘immigration crackdown’ and ‘Trump’s policy’ of separating children from their parents were misleading, unbalanced and unfair as the relevant law pre-dated Trump’s presidency. The Authority concluded the broadcast did not breach the accuracy, balance or fairness standards, as the references reasonably reflected the Trump administration’s position regarding the enforcement of criminal prosecutions for illegal immigrants. The Authority emphasised the high level of public and political interest in the story and found that any limitation on the right to freedom of expression on this occasion would be unjustified....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an item on 1 News, which reported on the United States (US) government shutdown, breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found the statement: ‘The crisis began after Democrats refused to sign off on the President’s demands for eight and a half billion dollars to build a border wall with Mexico’, was unlikely to mislead or misinform viewers about the latest events in the US government shutdown, reported on during the item. The Authority noted that in the context of the item as a whole, the presenter’s comment was an acceptable shorthand introduction to the key issues reported on. Finally, in this case the Authority found that the broadcaster was not required, in the interests of accuracy, to specify that the amount sought for the border wall was reported in New Zealand dollars. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-080:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-080 PDF281. 76 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Seven Sharp – in reference to the ongoing Novopay debacle, the presenter stated, “how many of us still give a toss? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority declines to determine the complaint on the basis it is frivolous in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment show, contained the following dialogue: Presenter 1: Happy six-month anniversary, Novopay. Look at you, you’ve been an absolute dream come true [sarcastic voice]. Presenter 2: Yes, it’s the relationship from hell for teachers and the pay system, but be honest, how many of us still give a toss?...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-042:McNair and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-042 PDF331. 38 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-141–143:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Alcohol Healthwatch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-141, 1993-142, 1993-143 PDF714. 53 KB...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an episode of wildlife documentary series Our Big Blue Backyard, classified ‘G’ and broadcast on TVNZ 1 at 7. 30pm, breached the children’s interests standard. This was on the basis the episode should have instead been rated ‘PG’, to signpost to parents or caregivers that supervision was recommended for younger viewers. The episode featured a scene where a female bottlenose dolphin was pursued, trapped and mated with by a group of male bottlenose dolphins. The Authority found the scene went beyond audience expectations of the programme’s ‘G’ rating as it featured mature themes, graphic images, and was dramatised in such a way that it may have been alarming or distressing for any children watching, and required adult supervision and guidance. Upheld: Children’s Interests No Order...